Inappropriate trophy photos
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hempy
"the most degrading thing you could possibly do to someone is to take their life away from them."
Why is it degrading ?
If the guy is trying to kill you, I wouldn't call it degrading.
Maybe I am misreading it.
"the most degrading thing you could possibly do to someone is to take their life away from them."
Why is it degrading ?
If the guy is trying to kill you, I wouldn't call it degrading.
Maybe I am misreading it.
Bodies
Have a look on U tube or Pathe news at WW2 and you can see loads of bodies from all sides so its nothing new .Only that everyone nowadays has a camera on their person.Remember that picture of a viet cong being executed by a viet police chief who lived happly ever after in the USA?For example!
I'm a retired British Officer. I cannot get worked up by a Regiment soldier giving a 'thumbs up' with his dead enemy in the background. Well done that man! Pity there arent a couple of dozen in the background.
The idea of war, for those of you who have difficulty understanding, is to kill the other lot until they stop killing you.
As for the PC mob in the Mil and PC politicos: well, not wishing to be banned, I shall reserve comment.
The idea of war, for those of you who have difficulty understanding, is to kill the other lot until they stop killing you.
As for the PC mob in the Mil and PC politicos: well, not wishing to be banned, I shall reserve comment.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"It's a hell of a thing, killin' a man. You take away all he's got, and all he's ever gonna have."
Yes they were both trying to kill each other, and I doubt anything was going through either of their minds other than the immediate action. My point is that the bleeding hearts who are complaining about the degrading nature of the photo seem to be suggesting that the fact that the photo was taken is in some way more degrading to the dead guy or his family than the fact that he was dead in the first place...but they have no problem with him being dead.
You can't go feeling sorry for someone after lawfully killing them; and by that I don't mean the soldiers doing the shooting - I mean the politicians (and by extension the voters) who sent them there. It's called 'hypocrisy'...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Understand
And agree with the last sentence !
Pollies
Send troops in with the incorrect or no gear and
then get all uppity when it goes pear shaped or
gets dirty.
And agree with the last sentence !
Pollies
Send troops in with the incorrect or no gear and
then get all uppity when it goes pear shaped or
gets dirty.
Well, having spent a very pleasant evening looking at pictures of cats I am now back to argue with strangers. Many thanks for the picture BEagle, by the way, and thanks also to those that have PM'd me support - it's nice to know I am not (completely) pi##ing in the wind here.
While I said I had nothing more to say on the matter, and my underlying argument remains the same, I hope you'll humour me addressing some of the specific points raised since last I 'spoke'.
Setting aside the incredibly patronising tone of your sign-off, it's exactly because I do understand the intricacies of counterinsurgency/terrorist campaigns that I can recognise the dangers that such images can cause (to our ongoing efforts in Afghanistan and beyond).
You assume correctly barnstormer1968, and I am puzzled as to why you would post it given that you already seem to know that it is not the same as a photo of British soldiers gloating over the bodies of dead enemy combatants. If it is to show me that bad things happen in war, I get it already.
Yes they do, and that is why there are rules governing behaviours on the battlefiled and why military discipline needs to be maintained. Trophy pics are the thin edge of the wedge on a slippery slope that ultimately leads to Mai Lai or to soldiers walking into Afghan villages and machine gunning civilians (not looking to disparage any Americans reading this - other massacres are avialable, but these are two of the most notorious and well known).
Oldpax, please read all the posts before commenting, I have already said that the posting of dead bodies isn't what's at issue here, it's the standing over them with thumbs up (and no, I don't believe they were thumbing a lift - A comment I think that was made in jest, but it's hard to tell on here sometimes).
Did they not teach you about the rules of war in Sandhurst Basil, or is that seen as acceptable behaviour? Was military discipline not important in your outfit?
Don't you have any Clausewitz or Sun Tzu you can hit me with Hempy? I mean, Clint Eastwood?? Well, seeing as you don't seem to be able to tell the difference between Hollywood and real-life, I'll come back at you with an Eastwood quote of my own; "Man has got to know his limitations." (Dirty Harry). I think you've found yours.
As a final reflection, I'd like to reproduce the speech made by Colonel Tim Collins ahead of the Iraq War. It makes no mention of denigrating your enemies after death, or the taking of trophy photos, and there is nothing'PC' or 'tree-hugging' in his words.
The overriding theme of this speech (to me at least) is to fight hard, but not to lose sight of common human decency to your fellow man, enemy or not, and to treat them with respect at all times (bold mine).
"We go to liberate, not to conquer.
We will not fly our flags in their country. We are entering Iraq to free a people and the only flag which will be flown in that ancient land is their own.
Show respect for them.
There are some who are alive at this moment who will not be alive shortly.
Those who do not wish to go on that journey, we will not send.
As for the others, I expect you to rock their world.
Wipe them out if that is what they choose.
But if you are ferocious in battle remember to be magnanimous in victory.
Iraq is steeped in history.
It is the site of the Garden of Eden, of the Great Flood and the birthplace of Abraham.
Tread lightly there.
You will see things that no man could pay to see
- and you will have to go a long way to find a more decent, generous and upright people than the Iraqis.
You will be embarrassed by their hospitality even though they have nothing.
Don't treat them as refugees for they are in their own country.
Their children will be poor, in years to come they will know that the light of liberation in their lives was brought by you.
If there are casualties of war then remember that when they woke up and got dressed in the morning they did not plan to die this day.
Allow them dignity in death.
Bury them properly and mark their graves.
It is my foremost intention to bring every single one of you out alive.
But there may be people among us who will not see the end of this campaign.
We will put them in their sleeping bags and send them back.
There will be no time for sorrow.
The enemy should be in no doubt that we are his nemesis and that we are bringing about his rightful destruction.
There are many regional commanders who have stains on their souls and they are stoking the fires of hell for Saddam.
He and his forces will be destroyed by this coalition for what they have done.
As they die they will know their deeds have brought them to this place. Show them no pity.
It is a big step to take another human life.
It is not to be done lightly.
I know of men who have taken life needlessly in other conflicts.
I can assure you they live with the mark of Cain upon them.
If someone surrenders to you then remember they have that right in international law and ensure that one day they go home to their family.
The ones who wish to fight, well, we aim to please.
If you harm the regiment or its history by over-enthusiasm in killing or in cowardice, know it is your family who will suffer.
You will be shunned unless your conduct is of the highest - for your deeds will follow you down through history.
We will bring shame on neither our uniform or our nation.
It is not a question of if, it's a question of when.
We know he has already devolved the decision to lower commanders, and that means he has already taken the decision himself.
If we survive the first strike we will survive the attack.
As for ourselves, let's bring everyone home and leave Iraq a better place for us having been there.
Our business now is North.
I look forward to reading your responses (it would be a dull forum if we all agreed all the time). Best, MTW.
While I said I had nothing more to say on the matter, and my underlying argument remains the same, I hope you'll humour me addressing some of the specific points raised since last I 'spoke'.
I don't think you quite understand the intricacies of a counter-terrorist
campaign. Back to your knitting - there's a good boy.
campaign. Back to your knitting - there's a good boy.
Assuming that refers to the pic I posted, then clearly NO I don't think it
has the same moral equivalent..............which I suppose is why I pointed out the differences
has the same moral equivalent..............which I suppose is why I pointed out the differences
but I can only speak from my own perspective of things and after a very
stressful situation I've seen people do all sorts of funny things.
stressful situation I've seen people do all sorts of funny things.
Have a look on U tube or Pathe news at WW2 and you can see loads of bodies from all sides so its nothing new
I'm a retired British Officer. I cannot get worked up by a Regiment soldier
giving a 'thumbs up' with his dead enemy in the background. Well done that man! Pity there arent a couple of dozen in the background.
giving a 'thumbs up' with his dead enemy in the background. Well done that man! Pity there arent a couple of dozen in the background.
To quote Clint Eastwood in 'Unforgiven'
Don't you have any Clausewitz or Sun Tzu you can hit me with Hempy? I mean, Clint Eastwood?? Well, seeing as you don't seem to be able to tell the difference between Hollywood and real-life, I'll come back at you with an Eastwood quote of my own; "Man has got to know his limitations." (Dirty Harry). I think you've found yours.
As a final reflection, I'd like to reproduce the speech made by Colonel Tim Collins ahead of the Iraq War. It makes no mention of denigrating your enemies after death, or the taking of trophy photos, and there is nothing'PC' or 'tree-hugging' in his words.
The overriding theme of this speech (to me at least) is to fight hard, but not to lose sight of common human decency to your fellow man, enemy or not, and to treat them with respect at all times (bold mine).
"We go to liberate, not to conquer.
We will not fly our flags in their country. We are entering Iraq to free a people and the only flag which will be flown in that ancient land is their own.
Show respect for them.
There are some who are alive at this moment who will not be alive shortly.
Those who do not wish to go on that journey, we will not send.
As for the others, I expect you to rock their world.
Wipe them out if that is what they choose.
But if you are ferocious in battle remember to be magnanimous in victory.
Iraq is steeped in history.
It is the site of the Garden of Eden, of the Great Flood and the birthplace of Abraham.
Tread lightly there.
You will see things that no man could pay to see
- and you will have to go a long way to find a more decent, generous and upright people than the Iraqis.
You will be embarrassed by their hospitality even though they have nothing.
Don't treat them as refugees for they are in their own country.
Their children will be poor, in years to come they will know that the light of liberation in their lives was brought by you.
If there are casualties of war then remember that when they woke up and got dressed in the morning they did not plan to die this day.
Allow them dignity in death.
Bury them properly and mark their graves.
It is my foremost intention to bring every single one of you out alive.
But there may be people among us who will not see the end of this campaign.
We will put them in their sleeping bags and send them back.
There will be no time for sorrow.
The enemy should be in no doubt that we are his nemesis and that we are bringing about his rightful destruction.
There are many regional commanders who have stains on their souls and they are stoking the fires of hell for Saddam.
He and his forces will be destroyed by this coalition for what they have done.
As they die they will know their deeds have brought them to this place. Show them no pity.
It is a big step to take another human life.
It is not to be done lightly.
I know of men who have taken life needlessly in other conflicts.
I can assure you they live with the mark of Cain upon them.
If someone surrenders to you then remember they have that right in international law and ensure that one day they go home to their family.
The ones who wish to fight, well, we aim to please.
If you harm the regiment or its history by over-enthusiasm in killing or in cowardice, know it is your family who will suffer.
You will be shunned unless your conduct is of the highest - for your deeds will follow you down through history.
We will bring shame on neither our uniform or our nation.
It is not a question of if, it's a question of when.
We know he has already devolved the decision to lower commanders, and that means he has already taken the decision himself.
If we survive the first strike we will survive the attack.
As for ourselves, let's bring everyone home and leave Iraq a better place for us having been there.
Our business now is North.
I look forward to reading your responses (it would be a dull forum if we all agreed all the time). Best, MTW.
Last edited by melmothtw; 11th May 2014 at 07:04.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: S of 55N
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My OP appears to have polarised the PPrune community somewhat, which is interesting because it can get a bit homogeneous on here.
I think there's a sensible discussion hidden amongst some of the posts, and it revolves around a (natural) tension between the following two factors:
1. The human issues associate with a young man not being dead and being glad that his enemy is (which seems fine to me).
2. The suggestion (which I agree with) that taking photos of the enemy that can be construed (rightly or wrongly) as celebratory, is wrong.
It's a recognition of this tension that resulted in the moratorium on taking photos like this. The senior leadership acknowledged this tension and acted to remove the risk by issuing an order that photos of this nature were not to be taken. That order was intended to protect everyone; servicemen and women, the dignity of a poorly educated, mislead (but still deadly) enemy and, most importantly, the UK's strategic intent.
The interesting thing to me is not that young men take stupid photos, but that the order was ignored. If the rocks in question are to be punished, that's what it should be for - disobeying an order. I hope being found guilty would come with a proportionate punishment.
Sun.
I think there's a sensible discussion hidden amongst some of the posts, and it revolves around a (natural) tension between the following two factors:
1. The human issues associate with a young man not being dead and being glad that his enemy is (which seems fine to me).
2. The suggestion (which I agree with) that taking photos of the enemy that can be construed (rightly or wrongly) as celebratory, is wrong.
It's a recognition of this tension that resulted in the moratorium on taking photos like this. The senior leadership acknowledged this tension and acted to remove the risk by issuing an order that photos of this nature were not to be taken. That order was intended to protect everyone; servicemen and women, the dignity of a poorly educated, mislead (but still deadly) enemy and, most importantly, the UK's strategic intent.
The interesting thing to me is not that young men take stupid photos, but that the order was ignored. If the rocks in question are to be punished, that's what it should be for - disobeying an order. I hope being found guilty would come with a proportionate punishment.
Sun.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sun Who
I agree entirely that anyone found guilty of breaking orders here should be disciplined. I do not agree that the subject of the photo should be disciplined unless he was complicit in the breaking of said orders.
melmoth
I wont dignify your post with a reply other than to say that I have extended you the same courtesy you seem to have extended others...I didn't read it after the first line.
I agree entirely that anyone found guilty of breaking orders here should be disciplined. I do not agree that the subject of the photo should be disciplined unless he was complicit in the breaking of said orders.
melmoth
I wont dignify your post with a reply other than to say that I have extended you the same courtesy you seem to have extended others...I didn't read it after the first line.
I wont dignify your post with a reply other than to say that I have extended you the same courtesy you seem to have extended others...I didn't read it after the first line.
Well, having spent a very pleasant evening looking at pictures of cats I am
now back to argue with strangers.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why? Because it seems he got all caught up on the origin of the quote I used rather than concentrating on the substance if the quote itself. Which is fine I guess, if that suits his agenda, but it also shows the underlying strength of his argument.
Because it seems he got all caught up on the origin of the quote I used rather than concentrating on the substance if the quote itself.
A quote from a fictional Hollywood movie has no credibility in relation to the topic being discussed here, and therefore no substance.
You get that, right?
So let's put your quote aside then Hempy, and look at what you said after:
Yes they were both trying to kill each other, and I doubt anything was going through either of their minds other than the immediate action. My point is that the bleeding hearts who are complaining about the degrading nature of the photo seem to be suggesting that the fact that the photo was taken is in some way more degrading to the dead guy or his family than the fact that he was dead in the first place...but they have no problem with him being dead.
You can't go feeling sorry for someone after lawfully killing them; and by that I don't mean the soldiers doing the shooting - I mean the politicians (and by extension the voters) who sent them there. It's called 'hypocrisy'...
Would you call Colonel Tim Collins a 'bleeding heart'? You can read his views on the treatment of dead enemy combatants in my post (you say you haven't read it, but I suspect you have). There is no hypocrisy in the mantra of fight hard, but show respect to the dead.
Yes they were both trying to kill each other, and I doubt anything was going through either of their minds other than the immediate action. My point is that the bleeding hearts who are complaining about the degrading nature of the photo seem to be suggesting that the fact that the photo was taken is in some way more degrading to the dead guy or his family than the fact that he was dead in the first place...but they have no problem with him being dead.
You can't go feeling sorry for someone after lawfully killing them; and by that I don't mean the soldiers doing the shooting - I mean the politicians (and by extension the voters) who sent them there. It's called 'hypocrisy'...
Rules of engagement.
Is this what you are alluding to with Colonel Tim Collins ?Good for him but I have not read the Talibans "rules of engagement?I recall the RAF issuing "Gooly" chits to pilots ,I suppose that made them feel better should they fall into the hands of the enemy .Its the same old sh.t only more technology involved but in the end its all dirty fighting and blood being spilt .The photos mean nothing ,only to the person who was involved.
I'm not alluding to anything with my reference to Colonel Tim Collins, except to shoot down the misguided and incorrect notion that you have to be a 'bleeding heart liberal' to advocate showing respect for the dead.
I haven't seen the Taliban's rules of engagement either, but this discussion isn't about the Taliban but how British (and by extension Western) soldiers conduct themselves on the battlefield.
I'm sorry, but the ramifications of these photos are likely to have an impact far beyond those persons directly involved in them, in terms of showing to those we are trying to win over (not just in Afghanistan) our values as a society.
It's actually quite surreral to have to be explaining this, is it not self-evident and blindingly obvious?
I haven't seen the Taliban's rules of engagement either, but this discussion isn't about the Taliban but how British (and by extension Western) soldiers conduct themselves on the battlefield.
I'm sorry, but the ramifications of these photos are likely to have an impact far beyond those persons directly involved in them, in terms of showing to those we are trying to win over (not just in Afghanistan) our values as a society.
It's actually quite surreral to have to be explaining this, is it not self-evident and blindingly obvious?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: East Sussex UK
Age: 66
Posts: 6,995
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I just hope and pray that we don't have another Lee Rigby type "retaliation" here in the UK as a result of these pictures ... which is almost certainly a heightened risk now.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yes champ, you are right. Although I meant the 'first line addressed to me', grammatically I should have said 'the 24th line'. To be honest, unlike you I had neither the inclination nor paucity of argument to feel bothered to actually count, but thanks to your valuable contribution the world is a better place. Kudos.
meltmoth, millions who quote the bible would disagree, but again, from the comfortable, government provided first world safety of your living room it must be easy to assume an intellectual superiority as well as moral one. Write a letter...in fact why not visit a combat unit in person and express to the warriors there your displeasure, I'm sure they'd appreciate your opinions on the subject.
in fact why not visit a combat unit in person
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: S of 55N
Posts: 360
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Following up on the observation I made a few posts ago, that this debate seems polarised, I make the following additional observations:
1. Those who see no issues with the images in question seem also to think that those who do are 'bleeding heart liberals' and that assertions suggesting the photos are inappropriate or wrong, in some way suggest weakness or a lack of combat experience on the part of those making the suggestion. The implicit assumption there is that anyone who has seen combat would be bound to agree there's nothing wrong with the images. When this turns out not to be the case, a strong and indignant response seems to follow.
2. Those who do see issues with the images, seem to think that those who don't are stupid, ignorant, or unaware of the subtly and nuance of COIN/modern warfare/grand strategy (take your pick). The implicit assumption in this position, is that holding an alternative view necessarily makes people stupid. It doesn't.
It seems to me that neither position is particularly useful. There is an inescapable duality in the need to be both strong, ruthless and smart when pursuing politics by violent means. I think Col Collins understood that and his words reflected it.
What are the odds that we can continue this discussion without any more ad hominem posts?
Sun.
1. Those who see no issues with the images in question seem also to think that those who do are 'bleeding heart liberals' and that assertions suggesting the photos are inappropriate or wrong, in some way suggest weakness or a lack of combat experience on the part of those making the suggestion. The implicit assumption there is that anyone who has seen combat would be bound to agree there's nothing wrong with the images. When this turns out not to be the case, a strong and indignant response seems to follow.
2. Those who do see issues with the images, seem to think that those who don't are stupid, ignorant, or unaware of the subtly and nuance of COIN/modern warfare/grand strategy (take your pick). The implicit assumption in this position, is that holding an alternative view necessarily makes people stupid. It doesn't.
It seems to me that neither position is particularly useful. There is an inescapable duality in the need to be both strong, ruthless and smart when pursuing politics by violent means. I think Col Collins understood that and his words reflected it.
What are the odds that we can continue this discussion without any more ad hominem posts?
Sun.